A Review of Canine-Assisted Interventions for Youth Involved in the Criminal Justice System

Abstract

Given the complex risk factors associated with youth offending, a comprehensive approach is needed to support the reintegration of incarcerated youth. Canine-assisted interventions (CAIs), involving structured, facilitator-guided programs with dogs, have emerged as a strategy to promote human well-being while sometimes attending to animal wellness. This scoping review, conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, examines the characteristics and benefits of CAIs for youth aged 12–17 involved in the criminal justice system. This review included studies published in English through 2024, focusing exclusively on dog-based interventions. Studies were sourced from databases and grey literature between 1998 and 2020. This review maps program designs, objectives, participant profiles, practitioner qualifications, dog roles, and reported outcomes for the youth participants and dogs. Findings reveal that some studies reported improved participant behavioural, psychological, and social outcomes, while few found no significant differences or noted symptom worsening. Some studies noted that training dogs in a CAI may boost their chances of adoption. Gaps include non-standardized terminology, need for more research, inadequate handler training, and insufficient focus on animal welfare. The study concludes that standardized protocols, enhanced handler training, and rigorous program evaluation are essential for ethical and effective CAI implementation that contributes to the well-being and successful reintegration of youth following incarceration.

1. Introduction

Justice-involved youth commonly face a range of personal challenges, such as academic difficulties, mental health issues, early traumatic experiences, unstable family environments, and exposure to poverty or high-crime communities (Duindam et al. 2021; Steinberg et al. 2004). Youth involved in the justice system are significantly more likely to experience mental health disorders than their non-detained peers. Approximately 20% of youth in the juvenile justice system are estimated to experience serious mental health disorders (Cocozza and Skowyra 2000), a rate twice as high as that of the general youth population (Friedman et al. 1996). Certain conditions, such as psychosis, are up to 10 times more common among justice-involved youth (Fazel et al. 2008).

Given the complex risk factors for youth offending, a more comprehensive, holistic approach is needed to address youths’ social reintegration needs. Canine-Assisted Interventions (CAIs), as specific type of animal-assisted intervention (AAI) with the inclusion of dogs in structured activities designed to improve people’s wellbeing (Pet Partner, n.d.), represents a novel approach to support youths’ social reintegration. In recent years, CAIs have been gaining attention for their potential to positively impact the social reintegration of incarcerated youth. For instance, programs where youth detained in the justice system interact with dogs have shown promise in helping them develop critical skills like coping, trust-building, and empathy (Beetz et al. 2012; Offermans et al. 2020). In addition, CAIs can lead to improvements in participant behavioural and a reduction in misconduct (Duindam et al. 2020).

While most studies on CAIs have focused on adult populations, research suggests that these programs foster meaningful interpersonal connections, especially with prison staff, by cultivating trust and emotional bonding through relationships with the dogs (Aufderheide and Jalongo 2019). Importantly, this type of intervention can help participants better recognize and understand their emotions, leading to improved self-management, self-esteem, and reduced negative behaviours (Dell et al. 2019; Gibson et al. 2023). By promoting emotional regulation, social skills, and prosocial behavior, these programs may facilitate successful reintegration into the community and reduce recidivism (Duindam et al. 2020). This may happen because CAI can provide a safe source of social exchange and attachment. Such emotionally secure interactions can help to reduce stress and psychological arousal, allowing for greater executive control and social connections. These mechanisms can, in turn, facilitate community integration and decrease the likelihood of recidivism.

Although these interventions are growing in popularity, there is limited knowledge on their design and efficacy. A recent review by Overbey et al. (2023) provides a scoping review of nature-based interventions, including animal-assisted interventions, for at-risk youth. Their review found that these interventions generally yield positive psychosocial and behavioral outcomes, often with effects that are maintained over time. Recent work highlights the need to balance empirical evidence with practical considerations in youth interventions. For example, Lambie and Ioane (2024) emphasize that while evidence-based approaches such as CBT, MST, or FFT can be helpful for youth, interventions should also accommodate young people’s individual needs and responsivity, highlighting the value of clinician insight and practical experience alongside empirical evidence. The review highlights a need for more studies with robust empirical designs and comprehensive descriptions of interventions, noting that most current research is quantitative and often involves small sample sizes. Overall, these findings highlight a need for more studies with robust empirical designs and comprehensive descriptions of interventions, noting that most current research is quantitative and often involves small sample sizes.

A better understanding of CAIs could help professionals identify whether specific components of the interventions contribute to more effective outcomes, which can inform the implementation of programs that ensure the well-being of all involved. While CAI modalities vary substantially, examining their shared structural and relational elements may still yield useful insights into mechanisms of change and inform best practices across settings. With that in mind, this study aims to map existing research on CAI programs for incarcerated youth and examines differences in program design, objectives, participants, practitioner qualifications, and types of dogs involved the impact on the animals themselves. This analysis can provide a more comprehensive understanding of these programs, offering valuable insights to guide the development and implementation of future initiatives in CAI for youth involved in the justice system. Additionally, it can shed light on how issues related to dog welfare have been addressed in previous studies.

Current Study

This scoping review aims to address this gap by mapping the existing literature on CAIs for youth involved in the criminal justice system. It will explore how these interventions are implemented in juvenile justice settings, highlighting their characteristics and benefits, including their possible impact on dogs. This review will specifically focus on CAIs’ role in the journey of justice-involved youth, including peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, book chapters, and grey literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Review Questions

This scoping review was conducted according to the methodology outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for scoping reviews and is reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The review aimed to map any studies involving dogs in correctional settings or forensic mental health hospitals targeting youth in the criminal system between the ages of 12 and 17. The main goal was to address the following research questions:

• What are the characteristics of canine-assisted interventions designed for youth involved in the criminal justice system?
• What are the benefits of canine-assisted interventions for youth involved in the criminal justice system?

In addition, this review focused on mapping the potential benefits for the dogs, with attention to both short- and long-term impact. There is a lack of studies exploring if and how these interventions may be helpful for dogs (Santaniello et al. 2021) and understanding the advantages of CAIs for all the participants involved in these interventions can offer a more holistic view of these programs.

To address these research questions, the review responds to the growing need for evidence-based practices and clear guidelines for CAIs with youth in justice-related contexts (Antonio et al. 2017; Parish-Plass and Bachi 2020). Such interventions present unique opportunities for social reintegration, but they also bring specific challenges and ethical considerations. Understanding how CAIs involving vulnerable populations are structured can help maximize therapeutic benefits while considering the welfare and ethical treatment of the animals involved (Parish-Plass and Bachi 2020; Dell et al. 2021). More specifically, elucidating on the characteristics of CAIs can shed light on the type of program that can better meet the needs of the youth population, ensuring that the interventions are developmentally appropriate to address specific emotional, social and psychological challenges faced by youth involved in the criminal justice system.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

The scoping review applies the Participant, Concept, Context (PCC) framework (Peters et al. 2022).

This review was conducted in accordance with a prior published protocol (Roma et al. 2024).

2.3. Participants: Youth

The participants under review are youth involved in the criminal system between 12 and 17 years of age. The age range was determined following the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act (2002) (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002). Studies involving youth and adults that did not present separate findings for each group were excluded to ensure that the findings remained relevant to the focus on youth.

2.4. Concept: Canine Assisted Interventions

The concept under review is canine-assisted interventions, specifically interactions between humans and canines. Such interventions included any structured intervention including the presence of dogs and with specific goals (e.g., not just visiting). As we expected to find a great variation in terminologies, rather than focusing on the terminology used by authors, the goal was to identify interventions that met the description outlined above. The review did not consider sources that report on youth’s companion dogs (pet dogs), or interactions with animals other than canines.

2.5. Context: Correctional Facilities

This review reported on correctional settings, including forensic mental health and juvenile detention centers, prisons, community supervision sites, as well as probationary and parole-based systems. Correctional facilities in any country were included in this study.

2.6. Types of Sources

Studies using both quantitative and qualitative designs were included, reflecting the review’s comprehensive approach. Additionally, we considered gray (unpublished) literature, including conference papers, research dissertations, books or book chapters, reports, and white papers, ensuring that a wide breadth of relevant sources were accounted for. Systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria were also considered, when the research question was related to CAIs.

2.7. Search Strategy

The search strategy aimed to locate both published and unpublished studies. Full-text sources were obtained using interlibrary loan services and through library subscriptions. An initial limited search was undertaken in MEDLINE^® (Ovid 1946 to present) and APA PsycINFO (Ovid) to identify exemplary articles. The keywords contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles and the index terms used to describe the articles were applied to develop a full search strategy. Search terminology for the concept of canine- assisted interventions was also adapted from a scoping review on the human-canine bond in recovery from substance use disorder (Dell et al. 2024). Search terminology for the concept of correctional facilities was adapted from sources on legal status and healthcare settings (Borschmann et al. 2020), and the health of adolescents in detention (McGowan et al. 2016). The search strategy was adapted for each database and information source, including keywords and thesaurus terms. The reference lists of all included sources were examined for additional sources. We searched the following electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), Embase (EM-BASE), CINAHL (EBSCO), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate 1900-present), CABI: CAB Abstracts (Clarivate 1900-present), SocINDEX, Criminal Justice Abstracts (EBSCO), and Academic Search Complete (EBSCO). We also searched the following sources for grey literature: ProQuest Thesis and Dissertations, Google Scholar, and Conference abstracts from the International Society for Anthrozoology Conference (Roma et al. 2024). The search strategy was peer-reviewed by a second librarian, using the PRESS Guidelines. Access to the complete search strings for all databases in this study are archived on the OSF project page (Roma et al. 2024).

There is a new recommendation regarding terminology for animal-assisted services (Binder et al. 2024), and this review attempts to identify and include the variety of terminologies used in different studies. With this in mind, we adopt the terminology used by the original authors of the studies included in the present review. A variety of terminologies such as animal-assisted therapy and pet-assisted psychotherapy were used by authors to refer to interventions with the presence of the dog. In many cases, no specific definition was provided. However, our inclusion criteria encompassed all studies that involved the presence of dogs in one or more sessions with a defined objective.

Only studies published in English and pertaining to the topic of research were included in the review to ensure accessibility, consistency in analysis, and relevance to the study’s objectives. Given that this is an emerging area of study, no date limitations were applied to the search. The goal was to capture all available literature.

2.8. Evidence Selection and Data Extraction

Following the search, all potentially relevant citations were collated and uploaded to Covidence, where duplicates were removed. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts for assessment against the inclusion criteria following an initial pilot screening. Two independent reviewers (i.e., the first and second authors) retrieved potentially relevant sources in full text and assessed them in detail against the inclusion criteria. The reasons for excluding full-text articles are described in Figure 1. Disagreements between reviewers during the review process were resolved through consensus.

The first and second authors reviewed the included papers, and data corresponding to the two research questions were extracted considering the following categories: authors, year, title, country, setting, purpose, target behavior, research design, sample information, type of intervention, description of the program, duration of intervention, description of the handler, role of the handler, description of the dogs, role of the dogs, training of the handler, information about the dog’s welfare, with a specific focus on potential impacts on the participating dogs, findings, and authors’ conclusions. Textual descriptions were kept as close to their original form as possible. Discrepancies within each dyad were resolved through consensus. The comprehensive results of the search and study inclusion process are detailed in the PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1) (Tricco et al. 2018; Page et al. 2021).

Reasons for exclusion of sources of evidence at full text that do not meet the inclusion criteria are recorded and publicly available in the Borealis data repository.

3. Results

3.1. Study Inclusion

A total of 774 records were identified from the included databases and an additional 46 from grey literature sources and hand searching (820 in total). All records were imported into Covidence where duplicates were removed, leaving 567 records remaining. Four records were excluded because full text could not be obtained. After titles and abstracts were screened for relevance, 86 records were identified that met the inclusion criteria, and these were subjected to a review of the full text. Ultimately, 71 reports were excluded leaving 11 studies for inclusion in this review.

3.2. Descriptions of Studies and Interventions

Eleven manuscripts, including five dissertations (Belo 2017; Chianese 2010; Lowe 2011; Pataky 2020; Peacock 1984) and six papers (Conniff et al. 2005; Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Grommon et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2018; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018), met the inclusion criteria. All the studies were published in the United States between 1998 and 2020. Seven studies used quantitative methodology (Chianese 2010; Grommon et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2018; Pataky 2020; Peacock 1984; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018), two employed qualitative methodology (Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Lowe 2011), and two involved a mixed-method design (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005). The studies were undertaken in various settings. Six studies were conducted in detention facilities (Belo 2017; Grommon et al. 2020; Lowe 2011; Martinez et al. 2018; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018), two in residential detention centers (Conniff et al. 2005; Seivert et al. 2018), two in juvenile halls (Brelsford et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2018), and one in a training school (Cournoyer and Uttley 2007). The terminology used to describe study settings reflects the labels provided by the original studies and has been reported here without reclassification. One study focused on recidivism rate as the target outcome (Chianese 2010), while the remaining ten measured behavioural and emotional skills such as self-esteem, empathy, social competence, and overall mental health symptoms. These outcomes reflect what was measured in the studies and may not correspond directly to formal program goals, which could be broader or not explicitly defined.

The term most frequently used to describe the programs was ‘animal-assisted therapy’ (Lowe 2011; Pataky 2020; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018). Other authors used various terminologies to describe the programs, including canine-assisted activity programs (Grommon et al. 2020), pet-assisted therapy programs (Cournoyer and Uttley 2007), pet-facilitated psychotherapy (Peacock 1984), animal-assisted activity (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005), animal-assisted intervention (Martinez et al. 2018), and one program involved fostering puppies until they are available for adoption (Chianese 2010). The interventions designs varied in purpose, duration, frequency of sessions, and professionals involved in delivering the interventions (see details in

Table 1. Overview of studies and dog–handler team.

Author	Methodology	Sample	Setting	Session Frequency	Intervention’s Duration	Dog/Handler
(Peacock 1984) (dissertation)	Quantitative	24 youths	Residential detention center	No information	Sessions: 45 min Intervention: no information	A 47-pound German Shepherd–Labrador mix from a shelter, had lived with the therapist for three years.
(Conniff et al. 2005) (paper)	Mixed-method design	107 youth 12–17 years old	Residential detention center	Once a week	Sessions: 1 h Intervention: 8 weeks	Dogs were Delta Society–screened and obedient; handler information unavailable.
(Cournoyer and Uttley 2007) (paper)	Qualitative	Over 50 students 13–18 years old	Training School	Once a week	Sessions: 1 h Intervention: no information	The author was the dog’s (Labrador) tutor.
(Chianese 2010) (dissertation)	Quantitative	455 girls 12–19 years old	Juvenile hall	daily	No sessions. The puppies stayed in the facility. Intervention: Until puppies are adopted.	28 puppies; handler information unavailable.
(Lowe 2011) (dissertation)	Qualitative (focus group)	Clinicians and mental health counsellors	Detention facility	Not applicable	Not applicable	handler information unavailable.
(Belo 2017) (dissertation)	Mixed-method design	36 youth 14–18 years old	Detention facility	Once a week	Sessions: 1 h Intervention: 8 weeks	Therapy dogs; The handler was a certified volunteer.
(Martinez et al. 2018) (article)	Quantitative	131 youth 13–17 years old	Detention facility	Once a week	Sessions: no information Intervention: 10 weeks	Shelter dogs with adoption difficulties; handler information unavailable.
(Seivert et al. 2018) (paper)	Quantitative	138 youth 13–18 years old	Detention facility	Twice a week	Sessions: 2 h Intervention: 10 weeks	Shelter dogs over one year with minor behavior issues. handler information unavailable.
(Syzmanski et al. 2018) (paper)	Quantitative	138 youth	Detention facility	No information	Sessions: 2 h Intervention: 10 weeks	Shelter dogs; handler information unavailable.
(Grommon et al. 2020) (paper)	Quantitative	12 youth 12–18 years old	Detention facility	Daily	Sessions: 1 h Intervention: 1 week	First session: service dog with handler; late sessions: a shelter dog.
(Pataky 2020) (dissertation)	Quantitative	8 youth (experimental group) 11 youth (control group)	Juvenile hall	No information	Sessions: 90 min Intervention: 8 weeks	Therapy dogs. handler information unavailable.

).

Regarding the description of the interventions, one study involved sessions focused on training dogs (Grommon et al. 2020), while four studies involved programs with both training and educational components (Conniff et al. 2005; Martinez et al. 2018; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018). Although one of these studies’ main goals was training the dogs, it also involved produced journals (Syzmanski et al. 2018). Three studies focused on play or care-related interactions with the dogs in activities such as grooming, petting and playing (Belo 2017; Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Pataky 2020). Another study focused on understanding how the presence of a dog in psychotherapy sessions could help to improve rapport (Peacock 1984). In addition, one study involved exposure to a dog over a long period of time as the dog was housed in a juvenile hall unit (Chianese 2010) and not necessarily a structured form of interaction. Only one study failed to describe the interactions between dogs and youth (Lowe 2011).

3.3. Main Gaps

Gaps were identified in the descriptions of the studies. For example, seven studies reported that the duration of sessions ranged from forty-five minutes to two hours (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005; Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Grommon et al. 2020; Lowe 2011; Pataky 2020; Syzmanski et al. 2018); two studies did not provide this information (Lowe 2011; Martinez et al. 2018), and one presented it unclearly, only stating that dogs stayed with youth until they were adopted (Martinez et al. 2018). In one study, no indication of duration of sessions was found (Lowe 2011).

In three studies, the program lasted ten weeks (Martinez et al. 2018; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018), while in other studies, it lasted eight weeks (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005; Pataky 2020). In one study, the program lasted one week with daily sessions (Grommon et al. 2020), while in another study, it happened until the participating dogs were adopted, and no further details were provided (Chianese 2010). Three studies did not provide information related to the duration of the program (Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Lowe 2011; Peacock 1984).

In five studies, sessions were conducted weekly (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005; Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Martinez et al. 2018; Pataky 2020), while one study involved sessions twice a week (Seivert et al. 2018) and two involved daily exposure to the dogs (Chianese 2010; Grommon et al. 2020). Only three studies did not describe the frequency of the sessions (Lowe 2011; Peacock 1984; Syzmanski et al. 2018).

The description of the dog and handler (person responsible for working with the dogs) revealed several gaps, as described in Table 1. For example, five studies did not describe the handler (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005; Lowe 2011; Martinez et al. 2018; Pataky 2020) and the remaining studies provided only superficial details about the handler, such as their profession and gender. Only one study informed that the handler was certified by a dog training organization (Belo 2017). The dog handler was only identified in five studies (e.g., therapist, researcher, volunteer certified handler), although specific details were not provided. Sometimes, no information was provided about the handler’s participation in the sessions, raising the possibility that these studies did not involve the direct participation of a handler. In addition, none of the studies described measures related to the dog’s welfare. All the studies described the dog vaguely, and in most studies, there was a lack of information about breed, age, dogs’ well-being protocols, and certification (see Table 1). Additionally, the studies did not mention review by an Ethical Review Board for Animals.

The findings (see

Table 2. Description of Interventions and Main Findings.

Author	Description of the Intervention	Purpose	Type of Intervention	Findings
(Peacock 1984) (dissertation)	Control and experimental groups; 45 min sessions, experimental included dog care and training.	To explore practitioners’ use of AAI in the first interview, focusing on dogs’ role in rapport, positive attitudes, and relaxation.	Pet-facilitated psychotherapy	No group differences in rapport, liking, feeling understood, resistance, or affect. Relaxation and comfort with self-disclosure were higher in the experimental group.
(Conniff et al. 2005) (paper)	Unstructured sessions: grooming, playing, talking, scavenger hunts, weaving, and petting animals.	To assess the impact of AAI on youth’s behaviours and emotional states.	Animal-assisted activity	Syndrome scales (anxiety, depression, aggression, social problems) increased in both groups; Resident Behavior Assessment showed no group differences.
(Cournoyer and Uttley 2007) (paper)	Social worker reviewed behavior as dog roams; youth end by teaching tricks and giving treats.	To improve grades, behaviors, and attitude.	Pet-assisted therapy program	Improvement in youth’s functioning within the education program.
(Chianese 2010) (dissertation)	Experimental group: girls cared for unit dogs.	To evaluate the effectiveness of fostering puppies in reducing recidivism.	No specific terminology	Decreased recidivism for the experimental group.
(Lowe 2011) (dissertation)	Not applicable	To explore AAT clinicians’ perceptions of active participation in treatment.	Animal-assisted therapy	Increased youth participation, greater relaxation, and more leadership with dog exposure.
(Belo 2017) (dissertation)	Participants completed demographics and Beck Youth Inventories before the first session and again 8 weeks later.	To highlight AAT as an innovative youth rehabilitation approach.	Animal-assisted activity	No group differences in self-concept; AAA group showed greater improvements in mental health, program enjoyment, and positive perceptions of the dog
(Martinez et al. 2018) (article)	Both groups attended education classes; control walked dogs, experimentally trained them.	To develop a measure to assess the bond with companion dogs.	Animal-assisted intervention	Overall, no difference between groups. Bonding scores were greater in the intervention group.
(Seivert et al. 2018) (paper)	Intervention: 1 h animal education plus 1-h positive dog training.	To reduce internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.	Animal-assisted therapy	Staff and youth reported reduced internalizing problems; staff saw no change in externalizing problems; youth reported increased empathic concern.
(Syzmanski et al. 2018) (paper)	Several sessions designed for youth to train the dog.	To compare journals produced youth in the AAT and control groups	Animal-assisted therapy	AAT group showed higher cognitive growth and positive emotions; no group differences in future orientation or self-awareness.
(Grommon et al. 2020) (paper)	Sessions with obedience training, play, and skill-building activities.	Examine the effect of a dog-training program	Canine-assisted activity program	No group differences in empathy, optimism, social competence, or self-esteem; control group slightly more pessimistic.
(Pataky 2020) (dissertation)	Youth watched an educational video, then alternated play, tricks, leash walking, and ended with grooming.	To assess whether AAT reduces mental health symptoms and interpersonal sensitivity in youth.	Animal-assisted therapy	AAT group showed greater improvement in positive attachment, reduced alienation, anxiety, and egocentricity; no differences in social incompetence, depression, anger, or self-concept.

) indicated that four studies reported no significant differences between the experimental and control groups (Belo 2017; Conniff et al. 2005; Grommon et al. 2020; Martinez et al. 2018). In one of them, the symptoms worsened for both groups (Conniff et al. 2005). Four studies identified improvements in different areas, such as social skills, recidivism, participation in therapy, and self-awareness (Chianese 2010; Cournoyer and Uttley 2007; Lowe 2011; Peacock 1984). Finally, some studies revealed mixed results (Lowe 2011; Seivert et al. 2018; Syzmanski et al. 2018) with improvement in some behaviors or symptoms (e.g., anxiety, comfort at self-disclosure) while finding no significant differences in other aspects (e.g., depression, positive perception about the interviewer). None of the studies assessed outcomes for the dogs involved in the interventions, other than noting that the participating dogs were trained and this could increase their opportunities to be adopted.

3.4. Themes

Four themes emerged from the included papers’ results: clinicians’ perception of CAI for youth involved in the criminal justice system; participants’ perception of canine-assisted intervention in the criminal justice settings; the efficacy of CAI for youth involved in the criminal justice system, the comparison of the predictive accuracy of CAIs with control programs; and the development of an observational bonding measure.

3.4.1. Clinicians’ Perception of CAI for Youth Involved in the Criminal Justice System

Lowe (2011) explored the perspective of clinicians regarding the effectiveness of AAI for youth involved in the criminal justice system. Clinicians reported that youth who received treatment through CAI were generally more motivated and engaged in the treatment process, had more positive interactions with therapists, had lower stress levels, and had fewer violent incidents during their incarceration. Clinicians reported using CAIs to help youth gain skills in the areas of communication, attachment, and relationships. Based on the above information, clinicians identified CAI as a useful program to apply with youth involved in the criminal justice system.

3.4.2. Participants’ Perception of CAI in the Criminal Justice Settings

Belo (2017) asked participants open-ended questions regarding their experience in CAIs. When asked about what they enjoyed most about their daily group with the dog, 71% of respondents identified playing with, spending time with, feeding, grooming, or giving commands to the dog. Others mentioned learning about the dog, taking pictures on graduation day, exercising, and watching the dog. When asked if there was anything they did not enjoy, 88% reported nothing negative. A few mentioned the session ending or that the dog being too hot or tired. When asked how they felt about interacting with the dog, all respondents shared feeling “good about myself,” “happy,” “relaxed,” “peaceful,” and “not locked up.” When asked how they felt about the dog, over 95% of respondents were positive, noting the dog was “happy to see us” and “a good dog.” A few comments mentioned the dog being too hot, stubborn, or manipulative. When asked if they felt differently in this group compared to when they were not included in the group, over 65% of participants reported feeling differently, and all descriptive responses were positive. They expressed feeling “not locked up,” able to “express emotions I usually can’t,” forgetting about problems, and experiencing a sense of connection with their peers.

Cournoyer and Uttley (2007) asked participants about their experience during the CAI. One participant reported being able to talk about his problems and help other participants with their problems. Several other participants shared that discussing their problems was easier while the dog was in the room.

3.4.3. The Efficacy of CAI for Youth Involved in the Criminal Justice System

Belo (2017) examined the efficacy of using CAI to improve the mental health symptoms of youth involved in the justice system. Both parametric and nonparametric analyses strongly supported the hypotheses that participation in CAI treatment significantly reduced symptoms of depression and anger. However, the hypothesis regarding anxiety reduction received only marginal support. Although the hypothesis regarding increased self-concept was not generally supported, the marginal significance noted in the small sample was promising. Additionally, as noted by Belo (2017), improvements in mental health were observed across different ages, lengths of custody, and involvement in other mental health services, suggesting the findings are broadly applicable within this population despite individual differences.

Cournoyer and Uttley (2007) introduced CAI for incarcerated youth and collected qualitative data throughout the study. Results showed that most program participants who completed at least one cycle of Cisco’s Kids demonstrated significant improvements in their functioning within the educational program. More specifically, in the first nine-week cycle, students improved their school points by an average of 26%. In the second cycle, the average improvement was 13%. For the third cycle, improvements averaged over 10%, and for the fourth cycle, over 14%.

3.4.4. Comparing the Effects of CAIs with Other Interventions

Grommon et al. (2020) compared the impact of a CAI with a standard program for juveniles assigned to a county detention facility. The study found that the CAI program did not provide any additional benefits or harm compared to the standard practices and procedures received by other juveniles at the facility. Several key trends were observed. First, compassion appeared to increase over time, with both groups experiencing similar rates of improvement. Second, levels of empathy, optimism, pessimism, and social competence remained largely unchanged. Finally, while the change was minimal, self-esteem declined for both groups over time.

Chianese (2010) aimed to assess the extent to which involvement with a foster puppy in the “New Leash on Life” program might lower recidivism rates by performing a secondary analysis of probation department records. The results indicated that girls who participated as Puppy Moms had fewer probation referrals and engaged in less serious offenses compared to those without puppy exposure. In the No Puppy group, two out of five girls reoffended within six months, with a third of them committing new violations. In contrast, Puppy Moms cohort exhibited a reoffending rate that was 50% lower than that of the No Puppy group, and notably, they did not engage in any new offenses.

Seivert et al. (2018) evaluated the effectiveness of CAI in fostering secure attachment, enhancing empathy, and decreasing both internalizing and externalizing issues among incarcerated adolescents. More specifically, they aimed to explore dog attachment as a way to reduce behavioral issues and enhance empathy in youth and assess how prior experiences of maltreatment or foster care involvement affected treatment outcomes. An increase in empathic concern was noted among youth who participated in dog training and those who only walked dogs. However, the results did not indicate that general or specific attachment to dogs affected outcomes. Surprisingly, there were no differences observed between the treatment and control groups. Finally, both the intervention and control groups of youth reported an improved capacity to comprehend the perspective of others.

Syzmanski et al. (2018), examined journal entries from incarcerated youth involved in a randomized controlled trial of an CAI program called Teacher’s Pet (Syzmanski et al. 2018). The findings revealed significant differences in the emotional and cognitive content of the journal entries between the Teacher’s Pet (AAT) group and the Dog Walking control group, with the experimental group exhibiting more positive outcomes. This was somewhat unexpected, given that the behavioral measures did not reveal differences between the two groups.

Peacock (1984) conducted an experiment to investigate how practitioners could integrate dogs to engage and assess incarcerated adolescents during the initial interview session. The results indicated that having a dog present did not significantly impact subjects’ self-reported liking of the interviewer or their feelings of being understood compared to those interviewed without a dog. Additionally, the presence of the dog did not significantly affect the number of affect statements, or the amount of historical information shared between the two groups. However, the data revealed some notable differences: Participants with a dog reported feeling more relaxed during the interview and expressed greater comfort in self-disclosure. Furthermore, the presence of a dog appeared to decrease resistance, as evidenced by fewer resistant statements from those in dog-present interviews compared to those conducted without a dog.

In another study, the focus was on evaluating the effects of a pet visitation intervention on the behavior and emotional well-being of adjudicated female adolescents in a medium secure residential facility (Conniff et al. 2005). The results showed no significant differences in median Youth Self Report (YSR) scores or Readiness Release scores (Resident Behavior Assessment) between those who participated in the dog intervention and those involved in regular activities. This pattern was consistent across all YSR syndrome scale scores as well as overall scores, indicating that the eight-week animal-assisted therapy had no measurable impact on the participants’ emotional states or behaviors. The study also analyzed pre- and post-intervention changes within each group, revealing unexpected results: both groups exhibited increases in all YSR syndrome scales (except for “other problems” in the control group, which remained unchanged), indicating a general rise in behavioral or psychological issues overall (Conniff et al. 2005).

4. Discussion

This scoping review of studies on CAIs for youth involved in the criminal justice system found mixed results regarding the efficacy of CAIs for youth involved in the criminal justice system, with outcomes varying across studies due to differences in intervention structure, methodology, and participant characteristics. A critical observation emerging from this review is the importance of intervention structure, including session duration, frequency, and level of engagement, which may influence participant outcomes. While some youth experienced benefits such as increased emotional regulation, self-esteem, and social skills, these effects were inconsistent across studies, potentially reflecting differences in program design and implementation.

A key finding of this review was that while some youth participants experienced benefits such as increased motivation, self-esteem, and emotional regulation, the overall efficacy of CAI among youth involved in criminal justice system varied. This may be related to the diversity of methodologies and goals. The diversity in intervention goals and evaluation measures, coupled with small sample sizes in some studies are important limitations; the majority of the studies could potentially explain this discrepancy in findings. Additionally, studies comparing CAI to traditional interventions yielded mixed results, with some suggesting benefits while others found no specific benefits beyond existing practices. This variation may occur because some studies rely on self-reported questionnaires, whereas others assess the perceptions of professionals involved in the program. Moreover, the objectives of CAIs vary considerably across studies. In programs with only a few sessions, certain outcomes may not have sufficient time to emerge, while in long-term interventions, these effects are more likely to become evident.

These findings add to the literature by indicating what specific types of gaps and variations should be considered by scholars interested in CAIs among youth involved in the criminal justice system. The number and structure of sessions, goals of the interventions and type of professionals involved in the interventions may have an impact on the outcomes. For example, it is possible that the type of interaction established with the professionals involved in CAIs, and even the presence or absence of specific professionals during sessions, may influence the outcomes observed. It would therefore be important to clarify the specific roles of these professionals, as the lack of such information can make it difficult to interpret study results.

Another notable finding was the inconsistency across studies regarding the terminology used to describe interventions, with terms ranging from “animal-assisted therapy” to “canine-assisted activity programs” and “pet-facilitated psychotherapy.” This lack of standardization impedes direct comparison of studies and complicates conclusions about the effectiveness of CAIs within this population (Brelsford et al. 2020). This variation in terminology likely reflects the interdisciplinary nature of CAI, in which professionals from different fields work together, often without shared conceptual frameworks or clearly defined objectives. Standardizing terminology would help clarify the objectives, outcomes, and methodologies of various approaches, thereby enhancing comparability and improving overall research quality in this field.

Additionally, while the interventions had different goals and variations were expected, intervention structures varied considerably in terms of duration, session frequency, and participant interactions with animals. For example, some studies involved brief, infrequent sessions, while others engaged participants in long-term, intensive interventions with regular interactions. The spectrum of participation engagement, from passive observation to active participation, also impacts the degree to which participants benefit from the interventions. These structural inconsistencies create difficulty in determining whether positive results are attributable to the animal interactions themselves or to other factors, such as the duration of the intervention or the frequency of contact. Standardizing interventions components, such as duration and frequency, would help clarify the optimal conditions for implementing CAIs and make it easier to compare findings across studies.

The most prevalent gaps identified pertain to study descriptions, particularly regarding session length, intervention duration, measures related to the dog welfare, and the role of the handler. Several studies failed to report on the duration and frequency of interventions, while others provided unclear or incomplete details. The lack of detail related to handlers, such as their qualifications and level of involvement, raises concerns about intervention fidelity and the structured delivery of CAIs. Furthermore, no study included measures assessing the well-being of the participating dogs, which is a critical ethical consideration for CAIs. The lack of information about the dogs included in CAIs, as well as the gaps in information or criteria regarding selection, training and health-protocols is consistent with past reviews (Santaniello et al. 2021).

An important consideration emerging from this review is the potential role of CAIs in supporting reintegration of youth involved in the criminal justice system. While studies primarily reported improvements in emotional regulation, social skills, and prosocial behavior, these outcomes may also contribute to youths’ successful adjustment to their community’s post-release. Shared structural and relational elements of CAIs, such as consistent interaction with trained dogs, positive engagement with handlers, and opportunities for skill-building, may serve as mechanisms that facilitate reintegration. Situating these findings within the broader literature on juvenile justice interventions and rehabilitation underscores the significance of CAIs not only for immediate behavioral and emotional outcomes, but also for promoting longer-term social and community adaptation.

Although not a primary review question, dog welfare emerged as an important consideration across studies; incorporating standardized monitoring and reporting of welfare measures can enhance the ethical quality of CAIs and inform intervention design. Consolidating these considerations highlights key areas for future research and practice, reducing redundancy while providing a focused interpretation of critical findings.

This scoping review is significant for several reasons. First, few studies have specifically examined CAIs for youth involved in the criminal justice system, this focused review provides valuable insights into the unique characteristics and challenges of CAIs. Additionally, unlike many existing studies that primarily focus on human participants, this review also evaluated the extent to which past research has described key aspects related to the dogs, handlers, and dog–handler teams. By adopting this holistic perspective, the review contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of CAIs and highlights critical areas for future research.

More specifically, examining the roles of the handler, the dog, and the dog–handler team can help identify gaps in the literature that should be addressed in future studies. While the dog–client relationship is often a focal point, other critical dynamics, such as those involving the handler and the dog–handler partnership, remain underexplored. The lack of attention to these factors suggests that certain variables within CAI have been prioritized while others remain overlooked. This imbalance may lead to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions when evaluating intervention outcomes across different studies.

Providing thorough descriptions of interventions components can offer important information related to duration, frequency, dog–handler teams and handler qualification. The studies included in this review indicate that such details are often underreported, impeding efforts to determine best or promising practices in CAI. Detailed documentation of these factors would allow researchers and practitioners to assess which elements most strongly contribute most to successful interventions. For example, clarifying the handler’s expertise, the nature of dog–client interaction, and consistency in intervention delivery could help refine intervention protocols and ensure ethical considerations for both participants and animals. Addressing these gaps can result in a clearer understanding of how, when and for whom CAIs are most effective. Future research should explore not only direct benefits to youth, but also the mechanisms driving these outcomes, which would inform the design of more targeted and effective CAIs.

This review has limitations to consider. First, the inclusion criteria excluded non-English studies, potentially limiting the scope and generalizability of findings. Additionally, all identified studies were conducted in the United States which may restrict applicability to other cultural or geographic contexts. Another limitation arises from the thematic synthesis approached used which inherently involves subjectivity rather than focusing strictly on measurable outcomes. The inclusion of studies employing varied research designs further complicates analytical conclusions, as findings tend to be more descriptive than inferential.

Future research involving CAI for justice- involved youth should focus on standardizing terminology and methodologies to enhance comparability across studies. Of particular concern is the near absence of studies focused on aspects related to the dog’s welfare. Practitioners and researchers should adopt a more inclusive approach that ensures the welfare of the dog is an integral component of interventions. This not only promotes ethical treatment of animals but also offers a unique opportunity to educate youth about responsible animal interaction. Intentionally integrating dog welfare goals into CAIs could foster greater empathy and awareness among participants regarding animals’ needs. While a few studies have noted potential benefits to dogs—such as increased likelihood of adoption following obedience training. These outcomes have not been formally measured. Incorporating specific strategies to assess benefits for dogs would ensure that CAIs provide clear, tangible advantages for animal participants as well.

Additionally, future studies should provide comprehensive descriptions of intervention components, including session duration, frequency, handler qualifications. Addressing these gaps can potentially contribute to a clearer understanding of how, when, and for whom CAI may be an effective intervention within the juvenile justice system. Researchers should continue to follow best practices regarding animal welfare, as emphasized in the opening discussion, ensuring ethical considerations for all participants are maintained.

5. Conclusions

This review suggests that existing research on CAIs f designed for youth in the criminal justice system has yielded mixed results. While some youth participants demonstrated benefits such as increased motivation, self-esteem, and emotional regulation, the overall efficacy of CAI among youth involved in the criminal justice system varied. These findings highlight the need for a more comprehensive and holistic approach to reporting all variables involved in CAI. A clearer and more detailed understanding of these factors can help move the field forward by providing a more complete picture of what happens during interventions, including canine welfare. This, in turn, would allow researchers to better compare results and determine for whom, how, and under what conditions CAI among youth in the criminal justice system may be most effective.